Hungarian Vizsla Laundry Bag Vizsla items with this design Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio

Hungarian Vizsla Laundry Bag Vizsla items with this design Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio

Keep your dog laundry (towels and bedding) separate from you people laundry with this breed-specific bag. I have lots more Vizsla items available, and the laundry bag will soon be offered for all the dog designs that I make, so keep checking back!

Irish Setters Clipboard Irish Red and Irish Red & White Setters Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio

Irish Setters Clipboard Irish Red and Irish Red & White Setters Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio
Lots more Setter items available!

Racial Identity in America: Why Is It Still Important?

The other night, CNN had a special program about racial identity in the United States. As a Canadian of Irish and Scottish descent, and as someone who has never lived anywhere but Canada, I was (as the Brits would say) completely gobsmacked!

In the Canada where I grew up, my parents taught me by word and example not to judge people by their ethnicity. That said, I certainly saw other people do it, but it varied a lot depending on where I lived. I have seen discrimination against French-Canadians by Anglophones (non-French) and against Anglophones by French-Canadians, by Ukrainians against non-Ukrainians and the opposite, by non-Natives against Natives and Natives against non-Natives — well, you get the idea. It was a case of equal-opportunity discrimination. Someone always felt that someone else was somehow "less" for being different.

Even so, during my childhood, I saw little of this. I attended nine different schools in 12 years, and lived in four different provinces. I went to school with quite a few kids who were mixed race (part black or part Native) and some that were full-blood Native. In university, there was more diversity, and in the work force, I worked with many mixed-race people. Some looked mixed race, some didn't. But I never heard anyone question what race or mix of races someone else was, and if it came up, it was just mildly interesting. No doubt that was partly due to living mainly in small towns, but I don't think that completely explains it. I think it must be because Canada has a much different history than America.

In any case,  that is the perspective that I brought to the CNN show about ethnicity. I was quite shocked to discover that America, ethnically speaking, still has its head buried in the remnant of a slave culture, and that it is still affecting everything that people do. It seems that everyone still needs to be pigeon-holed into one race or another, even to the extent of determining whether a person is black enough to be a black American, or descended from the right black family line (in other words, from former slaves or "free persons of colour") to qualify as an African-American. The old One Drop Rule from the days of racial segregation may no longer be in force, but its effects still linger.

Why is it so important to Americans in 2012 that people publicly identify with a particular ethnicity and ignore the rest of what makes them who they are?

What identifies a black person? As a Canadian, I always thought it referred to people whose skin colour and features are similar to those of people from sub-Saharan Africa. The host of the show, Soledad O'Brien, just looks like an ordinary woman to me. Her multiracial background has produced a complete mixture of features that do not instantly identify her as being of any particular ethnicity, but because her mother is black, she says she is a black woman. A young girl of North African ancestry who was interviewed on the show looks middle Eastern, has no African-American or Sub-Saharan African blood at all, and yet she also identifies herself as black. Clearly, skin colour and facial features aren't what make them feel black.

If the term African-American is used, that makes more sense, since O'Brien is part African-American. But the girl from North Africa checked "white" on her college application (why do colleges care what ethnicity a person is?) because that is how the American government classifies her. Is she white? Is she black? Does it matter? It does to her, but why does anyone else care?

To make things even more complicated, a young man whose parents are from different parts of Africa said on the show that he is constantly told he is neither "black" or "African-American" because, despite his race and skin colour and facial features, he isn't descended from slaves or free American black people. The same comments have been directed at American President Barack Obama, who is of mixed race, because his father is African, not African-American.

It's not just the American black community concerned with this racial identity. The same issue has been raised on Native Internet forums, where people have complained about those who call themselves Indian when they only have a single great-grandparent who was Indian. Apparently, to be Indian, you need to be full blood, or nearly so, kind of a reverse of the One Drop Rule.

What does it matter to the rest of the world whether a person identifies with one race or ethnic group and not another? People should not have to choose to check a little box that says they are this race or that race, because in the end, it is meaningless. Many Americans, regardless of skin colour, are actually a mix of African, European, even Asian and American Indian genes. Some, like golfer Tiger Woods, have many difference races and ethnic groups in their backgrounds. Some mixed-race people self-identify as black, others as white, and some latch onto their Native or Asian roots. Surely it isn't anyone else's business what they consider themselves to be.

Why can't we see differences in our faces and hair and skin colour simply as features that make each person one of a kind, instead of trying to put people into artificial categories?

Isn't it time to just see people as individuals, all different and all equally valued?

Secretariat Framed Panel Print Secretariat Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio

Secretariat Framed Panel Print Secretariat Terry McNamee's Rosewood Studio

Lots more Secretariat items (and hundreds of other designs) are available in my on-line store!

Drug-free horse racing: is it a pipe dream, or is it achievable?

Jockey A.P. McCoy falls in a race on September 11, 2009 in Bangor-On-Dee racecourse. Many horses and jockeys are injured every year on race tracks around the world. However, when injured and sick horses are running while on medication, as they do in the United States, the risk to both horses and riders increases. (Photo: Paolo Camera)

In recent weeks, the New York Times has been running a scathing series about the toll that horse racing takes on the horses and jockeys who ride them.

The reporters have taken aim on the over-use of medication to mask pain and treat injuries and illnesses that, without the drugs, are sufficiently severe to require that the horse be either extensively rested or retired. Instead, the horses are medicated and raced, with alarming results: shattered legs, broken ankles, paralysis — and that's just the jockeys who are injured when a horse falls during a race or in training. Many of the horses end up so badly hurt that they are either euthanized or sent to slaughter.

The reports on drugs in horse racing made by the Times in the past six months included a list of the top 20 Thoroughbred trainers in North America by purse earnings from January to October 26, 2010, and listed the number of races (known as "starts") their horses made that year, the number of drug violations each trainer has, and compared them based on one violation per X number of starts. Using this method, one violation for every 300 starts is three times worse than one violation for every 900 starts.

Since I'll Have Another won the Kentucky Derby and Preakness this spring, the media has jumped all over trainer Doug O'Neill's record of medication violations as published last November. However, Bob Baffert, trainer of Bodemeister, the runner-up in both races, had nearly double the number of drug violations per start that O'Neill has. Baffert is third on the list with one violation per 465 stats, compared to O'Neill, who was seventh with one violation for every 807 starts. Yet Baffert's record was not mentioned during the televising of either race. Curious — and it becomes even more so.

Other top trainers in the Derby who were on that list include Richard Dutrow Jr. (second worst, with one per 343 starts), Kieran McLaughlin (6th, one per 710 starts), Mike Maker (8th, one per 883 starts), Jerry Hollendorfer (9th, one per 978 starts) and Steve Asmussen (10th, one per 985 starts). After that, the violations drop significantly, with Dale Romans (11th with one per 1,438 starts), Mark Casse (14th, one per 2,054 starts) and Todd Pletcher (15th, one per 2,413 starts). That's 10 out of the 17 Derby trainers. Most notably, Graham Motion, who also had a horse in the Derby, had zero violations in 7,659 starts. The other six trainers in the Derby were not in the top 20 trainers by earning in 2010, so their records of violations, if any, were not reported by the NY Times. Why was O'Neill singled out?

There's more. O'Neill finally received his punishment for a summer 2010 violation in California: a conditional 45-day suspension to begin July 1 (down from the 180 days he could have received) and a $15,000 fine. This despite the fact that, as reported by Jack Shinar in the Blood-Horse, "The hearing officer determined there were no suspicious betting patterns in the race. He further determined there was no evidence of any intentional acts by O’Neill in connection with the incident." O'Neill has claimed from day one that he did not give this horse anything to cause it to test positive.

To make it worse, another trainer in California accused of the same violation in October 2010 had his sentence handed down about six weeks, not almost two years, after the violation, and he was fined $5,000 and his 45-day suspension was stayed (which meant that, instead of serving it, he was on probation for a year). His horse finished second; O'Neill's finished well back in his horse's race, so obviosly the performance of O'Neill's horse was not enhanced. Why the difference in time required and punishment inflicted? Something is not right here.

To get back to the NY Times and its list of top 20 trainers, aside from being more than a year old, it is misleading in other ways. It only included the top 20 trainers by purse earnings, not by total number of starts. A trainer running lower-end horses could have a thousand violations and not make this list simply because the purse earnings weren't high enough. The list also does not state whether any of the charges were for performance-enhancing drugs or therapeutic treatments, or how long before race day the medications were given. The last is important, because horses retain drugs in their systems for different lengths of time. Two horses, receiving the same dose of the same drug on the same day, can show different test results, with one testing clear within the norm for that drug (for example, three days) while another still has traces of the drug several days longer than usual.

But the real problem isn't with illegal drugs like cobra venom, stimulants and so forth. It's with the legal ones, and the tripling, quadrupling or more to create a cocktail of legal medications to be used in one horse before it races. Those aren't included in the list, because it is perfectly legal to use them. Two examples are Lasix (also called Salix), an anti-bleeding medication designed to treat horses who suffer exercise-induced pulmonary bleeding, and Bute, or phenylbutazone, an anti-inflammatory. Currently, many of these drugs are coming under scrutiny within the horse-racing industry, and that is long overdue.

There is a huge question that has not been addressed, although it is sure to emerge very soon. Where do the trainers get these drugs, and who administers the drugs to the horses? Veterinarians. That's right, people whose mission is supposed to be to heal sick and injured animals, not mask their pain so that they can run while hurt. So why are these vets not receiving the same kind of scrutiny as the trainers are?

The bottom line is that is is veterinarians who are supplying the legal drugs that enable injured horses to race when they should be resting and healing. There needs to be much more accountability on the part of the veterinarians who treat race horses, and there needs to be a way to officially prevent horses from running while being treated for injuries and to keep them from running until they are declared healthy and able to do so.

For more information about the move to get rid of the use of race-day drugs in Thoroughbred racing, go to Clean Horse Racing. To learn about the severity and frequency of breakdowns in race horses, go here.

Manitoba teens win Canada's Got Talent

The first season of Canada's Got Talent ended May 14 with a huge surprise as three young Ojibway lads from a Manitoba reserve took home the grand prize and a year's bragging rights as the best new talent in the country for 2012.

Sagkeeng's Finest, a gifted and hard-working trio of young Native step dancers, improved at every stage of the competition. They proved that all they needed was a chance and a little professional coaching to reach the top. Amazingly, they had never worn proper tap shoes before, yet their final performance was a great tap dance learned in less than a week. New shoes, new dance, newly crowned winners!

The trio consists of Vincent O'Laney, age 17, and brothers Brandon and Dallas Courchene, ages 18 and 17 respectively. They were encouraged to try traditional step dancing by the tribal elders when the reserve started a drama and arts program about five years ago, and enjoyed it so much that they continued to dance and improve their skills.

The group auditioned for Canada's Got Talent in Winnipeg, Manitoba, where they performed a traditional country western style step dance. Dallas was still just 16 years old while the other two were 17. All three looked younger than their years, but their performance was well done, and judges Martin Short, Measha Brueggergosman and Stephan Moccio voted them through to the next round in Toronto.

The coaching they received in Toronto added polish to these already excellent dancers without changing their basic style. In the semi-finals, they wore traditional country clogging outfits of white shoes and pants and red shirts. At the end of the performance, the boys ripped open the shirts, revealing black tees proclaiming "We've Got Talent" to add a modern twist to the outfits.

For the finals, they were dressed in a sort of Irish style with vests and caps, which made them look very professional and identified them, not as cloggers or as country dancers of some kind, but as dancers, plain and simple. It was a very smart decision. Clearly they were an act to be reckoned with, especially when they unleashed their mad new tap skills. In additional to being one of the best overall acts on the night in both performance and appearance, this was the most improved act overall.

Sagkeeng's Finest had the unenviable position of going first in the final, never ideal in a competition. As a result, the audience had to remember how good they were while sitting through many excellent performances from the other 11 finalists. But in the recap at the end of the show, their quality shone through, and clearly struck a chord with the voting public. The result was an amazing first place finish.

After their performance in the final on May 13, host Dina Pugliese asked what they would do with the $100,000 prize money if they won, and right away they said they would build a dance studio so they wouldn't have to practice in basements or outside.  What a great gift that would be to their community!

The young men of Sagkeeng's Finest are role models, not just for First Nations people, but for everyone in Canada, of any age or cultural background. They are wonderful examples of what people can accomplish with passion, hard work and dedication.

Well done, Sagkeeng's Finest!

Should You Spay or Neuter Your Puppy?

It used to be that few dogs were spayed or neutered, but an exploding population of unwanted pets has changed that attitude. Now, some veterinarians even recommend early neutering (the term is used here for both sexes) instead of waiting until the dog is six months to a year old.

 

Which is the right decision? Early or later, the real decision is whether to neuter in the first place. While most dogs should be neutered, sometimes you should wait awhile before you get it done, instead of neutering early.

  

Reasons To Neuter A Dog

If you have a mongrel or mixed breed, have it neutered. There’s no reason to breed it. If someone wants a mongrel, there are many lovely ones already waiting in shelters.

If you have a "purebred" from a pet shop, have it neutered. The pet shop puppy will not be good breeding quality, and its pedigree may be false. In fact, the dog might not even be purebred. Many shelters have purebred dogs available for adoption, and at a much lower price than a pet shop puppy.

If your puppy came without registration papers, have it neutered. Without registered proof of pure breeding, the dog is no different from a mix and cannot produce registered, purebred pups.

If you bought a registered but pet-quality purebred from a good breeder, and the puppy is not eligible to be shown for some reason (such as incorrect colour), the breeder may insist that you have the dog neutered. But if the puppy sold as a pet has no disqualifying faults, you might want to wait a bit before neutering your pup.

Your Dog Can Always Be Neutered Later

Neutering is permanent. A neutered dog cannot be shown or bred. If the “pet quality” puppy from a good bloodline is neutered young and then grows up to be a top show-quality dog, you and the breeder are simply out of luck.

This happens more than you might think, because determining whether an eight-week-old puppy will be pet or show quality is difficult unless the puppy has an obvious disqualification. Even experienced breeders make mistakes. Many a breeder has lamented about selling a “pet puppy”, only to find out a few months later that the now-neutered pet turned out far superior to the “show puppy” they kept.

If there is even the slightest chance you or the breeder might want to show or breed the puppy later on, ask the breeder for a Non-Breeding Agreement. With this, you can’t legally breed the dog, but you don’t have to neuter it right away, if the breeder agrees to wait. Then you can wait until the puppy is older and re-evaluate the situation.

After a few months, the puppy might develop an undesirable or even disqualifying condition. He could end up with misaligned teeth, grow too tall or not grow enough, or be diagnosed with a health problem such as bad hips or eye disease, or, in the case of a male, he could have only one (or even two) undescended testicles. Any dog with these kinds of problems is generally not suitable for breeding and should be neutered, but consult your breeder first, just to be sure.

Possible Reasons Not to Neuter a Dog

If the dog is not quite show quality, as long as he is healthy and has no outstanding faults, you might want to wait just a little longer to neuter him. Show quality isn’t everything. You could take the dog to obedience classes or hunting classes and discover your pet is a fantastic performance dog. You might get hooked on obedience or field tests or other dog sports. If your dog turns out to have exceptional working abilities, that can make him valuable for breeding.

Remember: you can always neuter later, but you can’t go back and undo it!

Old Dogs and Neutering

If you decide not to neuter your puppy, the time will come when you need to look at it again. Older dogs are at greater risk for some cancers, and neutering can remove some of that risk.

Once their breeding and show careers are over, female dogs should be spayed. Spaying stops those annoying heat cycles and almost eliminates future "female" cancers.

Male dogs kept for breeding are sometimes neutered later in life, but not always. Consult your veterinarian if you feel this is an option you want to consider.